Railbird Central Podcast: Super Bowl Fallout

Former Packers wide receiver Andrae Thurman joins the show to discuss the game and some Green Bay football.

Episode 488

The morning after the Super Bowl, we're joined by former Packers wide receiver Andrae Thurman, CEO of Thurmanetics and an Arizona native and resident, who joins us to talk about Sunday's big game and some Packers football. After re-visiting the Super Bowl, we get Thurman's thought on Aaron Rodgers winning the NFL MVP Award and the impending free agency of fellow wide receiver Randall Cobb.

Enjoy...

Listen in...

Streaming audio - Press play

Download Versions: Download Audio Podcast

Free Subscription Option

NFL Categories: 
0 points

Comments (31)

Fan-Friendly This filter will hide comments which have ratio of 5 to 1 down-vote to up-vote.
D.D.Driver's picture

February 02, 2015 at 10:05 am

Let all the message board geniuses evangelizing the amazing playcalling of Bevell defend the goal line call...starting now.

**crickets**

0 points
0
0
4thand1's picture

February 02, 2015 at 11:46 am

Exactly! Seachickens shouldn't have been there anyway. Funny how things work out.

0 points
0
0
JimTaylor31's picture

February 02, 2015 at 12:32 pm

I know the Seachickens shouldn't been there but in reality I think we would have had a very difficult time staying with the Pats. Let's face it. The Hawks spotted us a 5-2 TO advantage and we still couldn't win. The Pats and Brady scored TDs when they got their chances and we were kicking FGs. The Pats just looked like an as-good if not better team than the Hawks while the Packers needed 5 TOs to stay in the game. I know we beat NE earlier but think about it. Which coach (MM or Billy B.) do you think would have made the neccessary adjustments to win yesterday? I think the two best teams played yesterday and the best team won.

0 points
0
0
Paul Ott Carruth's picture

February 02, 2015 at 01:35 pm

Josh McDaniels showed how you move the ball on the Seahawks....without a mobile quarterback. With the exception of the 2 interceptions, the Seahawks hadn't stopped the Patriot offense all night. The difference between McDaniels and McCarthy in approach is night and day. The Patriots didn't have a short field the whole night and put up 28 utilizing wide receivers with less talent than what is in Green Bay. Watching the game was like watching a Bill Walsh led offense with high percentage ball control passing and getting match-up advantages. Certainly wasn't the Erhardt-Perkins offense typically associated with McDaniels.

0 points
0
0
Packer_Pete's picture

February 02, 2015 at 05:18 pm

While I don't disagree here, as I don't know that much about football, I also would like to state that aside of 2 terrible throws by Brady, the Patriots #12 played much better than #12 played for the Packers 2 weeks ago. Just sayin...

0 points
0
0
HankScorpio's picture

February 02, 2015 at 04:58 pm

"I know the Seachickens shouldn't been there but in reality I think we would have had a very difficult time staying with the Pats"
=================================

You realize that the Packers beat the Patriots head to head this past season, right?

0 points
0
0
JimTaylor31's picture

February 02, 2015 at 06:04 pm

Yep. But with the NE offense and defense executing so well last night I think we would have had a very difficult time beating them. Just as Seattle had a very difficult time.

0 points
0
0
HankScorpio's picture

February 02, 2015 at 06:44 pm

Of course. The SB is supposed to be a tough game to win. Which makes that collapse of last week and that the Packers beat the eventual champ all the more tough to swallow. It's clear they were as good as anyone. They just didn't get it done.

0 points
0
0
Packer_Pete's picture

February 02, 2015 at 06:54 pm

I think as a team the Packers are better than the Seahawks. They have beaten the Patriots this season. So they are as good as anyone in the NFL, I agree. Which makes it tough to swallow, as you've stated.
What I find funny still as that back in November there were quite a few people on this board who completely dismissed the possibility of a Packers vs Patriots SB, and the Packers were just a play or 2 away from exactly that. And especially some who said that the Patriots would never be in the SB this year, let alone win it... Clearly they were the best AFC team this year. Just as I think the Packers were the best NFC team, but unfortunately didn't make it to the SB.

0 points
0
0
JimTaylor31's picture

February 03, 2015 at 09:02 am

I think we actually pretty much agree Hank. The door opened for them and the Packers simply didn't take advantage of the opportunity. I think all 3 teams are pretty darn close as far as talent and the Packers may actually have better talent than either NE or Seattle. I see a difference in coaching, execution and confidence. When Brady had the early picks NE stuck with their game plan and both Brady and Bill B. were confident they had the talent to succeed. When Aaron had the early picks both he and MM seemed to lose confidence and chose to become conservative. Brady, with lesser talent, proved that a HOF QB, with spotty protection, could execute and have success against the Hawks D. I just wish Aaron and MM would take heed.

0 points
0
0
D.D.Driver's picture

February 02, 2015 at 12:44 pm

Of course having said that. A better wideout like Nelson or Cobb fights for that catch, and a better QB like Rodgers throws that pass between the knees and the hips where his WR catches it falling down and doesn't have to fight for it.

This is all to say, I could totally see McCarthy making that same call, and I could totally see the Packers scoring on that play with better better players and better execution.

0 points
0
0
Paul Ott Carruth's picture

February 02, 2015 at 01:24 pm

The play call was fine given that it was an advantageous match-up. Pass was too high, receiver didn't flatten his route, etc. Seems to me many don't have a problem with McCarthy getting cute with 10 or 0 personnel in those situations and throwing the ball or flanking out Peppers and throwing a slant to a DE. Personally given how the Patriots hadn't stopped Wilson or Lynch I think a zone read to the 3 man surface with a delay leak to the corner by Luke Willson and Baldwin on a whip route to the flat would have been better. The actual play was fine....the execution was poor and that is where Bevell failed. He has to remind Wilson to throw the ball low or to the back shoulder. If that happens it's a touchdown. Just running the ball with Lynch on a gun back left zone run would not have guaranteed a score against the Patriots goal line personnel.

0 points
0
0
D.D.Driver's picture

February 02, 2015 at 02:11 pm

I actually agree with you, with a caveat--that play call would have been fine if the Seahawks had better receivers and did not have Marshawn Lynch. Just a pathetic effort by the wideout.

But it just goes to show that every playcaller makes controversial calls. When it works, everyone forgets it. If it blows up in your face, you get Worst-Call-Ever hyperbole.

That said, I'm running Marshawn Lynch three more times, or running Wilson on a sneak.

0 points
0
0
Paul Ott Carruth's picture

February 02, 2015 at 02:05 pm

Like I said... I wouldn't have called that play but the call was fine given the match-up. Better execution and it's a touchdown. The choice to throw that type of pass in that situation is what is terrible not the play itself. Coaches understand this, pundits do not. Zone read with a pass option would have been preferable given Wilson and Lynch hadn't been stopped.

0 points
0
0
4thand1's picture

February 02, 2015 at 02:25 pm

Ok POC, special teams lost the Packer game more than MM's play calling. Lets be clear about that. Had the Packers played the FG fake like they should have and Bostick doing his blocking assignment like he should have, you and everyone else would saying what a lights out game MM called. The Packers could have won it all and that's all I need to know.

0 points
0
0
Paul Ott Carruth's picture

February 02, 2015 at 03:11 pm

No...not really. Yes special teams contributed to the loss. The defense contributed to the loss. McCarthy's play calls beginning with 5:13 also contributed. Pundits easily gravitate to the obvious missteps. It's easy to see a fumble or poorly played fake. It's harder to understand complimentary football in the course of a fame. Like it or not McCarthy's decision to go in to a shell contributed to the loss and contradicted what had been effective most of the game.

0 points
0
0
4thand1's picture

February 02, 2015 at 03:38 pm

He played the odds. More than anything, wouldn't it be defensive play calling more than anything. I don't pretend to know all the x's and o's and diagramming plays. I'm just a fan whose been watching football for 50 years. I do know when I see mistakes being made during the course of a game and how they affect its outcome. 3 distinct plays had me jumping out of my chair. The fake fg, the Morgan B lay down, and the onsides kick. I wasn't worried about the goal line defense seattle played at the 40. If the o-line creates a small seem it usually results in a long run if you get passed the LOS. Throwing an incompletion saves a time out. So from my perspective, the defense laid and egg giving up big junks and quick scores, not keeping everything in front of them burning up the clock. So you can explain all the formations in the world and it doesn't mean shit to me. The Packers players didn't make plays when it counted.

0 points
0
0
D.D.Driver's picture

February 02, 2015 at 03:44 pm

"Like it or not McCarthy's decision to go in to a shell contributed to the loss and contradicted what had been effective most of the game."

Maybe. And thats a huge maybe. You assume that with different playcalling the Packers would have picked up a series of first downs and eaten up the clock. But that, too, comes down to execution. Rodgers had not been sharp.

On the other hand, recover an onsides kick and its a "W" and there is no maybe about it.

0 points
0
0
pooch's picture

February 02, 2015 at 04:49 pm

The dam broke before the onside kick and result was not suprising,game was lost on 3-19 then fake field goal

0 points
0
0
HankScorpio's picture

February 03, 2015 at 06:06 am

McCarthy had said going in to the game that wind bothers the Packers passing attack. Add in wet conditions and it is worse. I don't think that is specific to the Packers but a general truism regarding passing games. It was windy and wet that day. So there is real world factors #1 & #2 that say playing it "conservative" was the best way to go.

Real world factor #3 is the old saw about 3 things can happen when you pass and 2 are bad. Rodgers had already thrown 2 ints. A 3rd would have accelerated the collapse. A sack would have meant moving the ball closer to where Seattle needed it to go. And Seattle's defense is good about both generating sacks and forcing picks. BTW..The old saw ignores the 4th thing that can happen...an incomplete pass that stops the clock. That's not necessarily a bad thing but it sure was in that situation.

McCarthy could not factor in Rodgers ability to run in to held balance that equation. Let's call the calf injury real world factor #4.

Real world factor #5 is the fact that the 4 minute offense had been very effective down the stretch. It had closed out the previous two "must win" games. Given that, I was very surprised how ineffective they were in running the ball. Especially considering Seattle is better vs pass than vs run.

So yeah, he's going to emphasize run and try to win that way instead of, well, spitting in to the wind. It was the rational choice given the available facts.

It's convenient to say that the playcalling shell hurt the Packers. But it's just a guess. And a guess that flies in the face of the known facts. Nobody knows for sure it would have picked up a first down. It might have made things worse. All we know for sure is that running the ball did not pick up the first down(s) the Packers needed.

0 points
0
0
pooch's picture

February 02, 2015 at 04:47 pm

Turning point was 3-19 prevent,has not worked since 4-26,in fact prevent is huge thorn in Packers side.McCarthy should have called T.O and over ruled. Matthews rushing at that point and you have no hands to face penalty. Momo change at that point.St gives up 7,bad call on 3-19 sucked the life out of D

0 points
0
0
4thand1's picture

February 02, 2015 at 07:46 pm

Prevent means give up short yardage (10 yards or so) and keep the clock moving, not long passes down field. That's where the defense dropped the ball. I agree they should have rushed at least 4, screw the spy.

0 points
0
0
pooch's picture

February 02, 2015 at 04:53 pm

Packers are 2 players away for S.B,they need a Bobby Wagner type linebacker and T.E,Juluis Thomas F.A.,fill that need and don't have to draft one and maybe pick up another D lineman.

0 points
0
0
HankScorpio's picture

February 02, 2015 at 05:30 pm

In 2014, the Packers were one onside/hands team guy that knows how to carry out an assignment away from a SB. If Bostick blocks, Nelson puts that thing away. And the Packers would have been playing last night. Against a team they beat in the regular season.

But I certainly agree a fast, aggressive ILB and a big, fast pass catching TE would be very helpful.

0 points
0
0
MarkinMadison's picture

February 02, 2015 at 08:02 pm

Warren Sapp arrested for assault and soliciting a prostitute. Contract with NFL Network has already been terminated. Sapp appears to have admitted that he solicited a prostitute.

0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

February 03, 2015 at 01:36 am

Since Seattle only had 1 timeout, and there were only 26 seconds left, I don't think Seattle could have run 3 times with Lynch. One of the plays would have to be a pass. Given Wilson's recent propensity to throw INTs, I don't agree with the slant route. Something safe with instructions not risk an INT. Carroll always has said that Lynch was going to get 2 runs. I dislike Carroll intensely, but kudos to him for saying he made the call, even if it might not be true. The call might hurt Bevell in his quest to be a HC, but in my eyes Bevell's comment that Lockette could have fought harder for the ball is more damning. That should not have been said, even if it's true. Moreover, it looks to me like Lockette never even was aware that the NE DB was anywhere near him. The DB just beat the WR to the spot.

0 points
0
0
D.D.Driver's picture

February 03, 2015 at 02:09 am

I guess it depends on the context. But I think Bevell in 100% correct. Cobb or Nelson make that catch for a TD. Lockett went to the turf like a ragdoll. Just pathetic.

I think its also one of those exceptions where you *don't* try to snatch the ball out of the air with your hands but instead try to cradle the ball to your body.

0 points
0
0
4thand1's picture

February 03, 2015 at 03:34 pm

When are the fines coming for the classless seahawks. The crapping out a football celebration, the fight, the helmet to helmet hit . Man am I glad those assholes lost.

0 points
0
0
HankScorpio's picture

February 03, 2015 at 04:31 pm

When you hire a classless punk like Pete Carroll who left USC one step ahead of the NCAA posse, I reckon you shouldn't be surprised when your team turns out like the Seahawks have.

I think they also lead the league in suspensions for violating the substance abuse policy since Carroll arrived. I know for sure they did a few years back. But I haven't seen the "standings" recently. Maybe they should call their DBs the Legion of Choom.

0 points
0
0
4thand1's picture

February 04, 2015 at 01:29 pm

I hear theres a list of em due for HGH testing.

0 points
0
0
Packer_Pete's picture

February 03, 2015 at 08:05 pm

Almost Hank. Since 2010 when Carroll came on board, the Redskins have the most single suspensions for substance abuse with 10, Seattle is next with 9. then the Colts with 6. But in any way, that clearly is a culture of juicing, and I don't doubt Carroll has a big hand in it as well.

But I know, some here will say that all teams juice, and that the Seahawks are just well coached...

0 points
0
0